Yes, quite possibly.
Cheers,
Chris
Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
>
> So you're saying a binding could be considered as a local intermediary? (or maybe
> some bindings only?)
>
> Jean-Jacques.
>
> christopher ferris wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Secondly, if I correctly understand Henrik's position a binding
> > MAY actually transform the message by inserting headers which
> > relate information that is not contained within the message,
> > but is available to the software that effects the binding.
> > e.g. the "binding" may actually perform as an actor in the SOAP
> > sense. Conversely, a binding may consume header blocks that
> > are targetted to it, thus effectively transforming the message.
> > [...]